This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

That may be what you FEEL, but the weight of history says you are ignorant. Sorry, blunt I know, but...

In both WWi and WWII, we had a very very small military prior to declaring war. Massive enlistment drives and the draft were needed to rebuild the army.

We had small armies prior to both, yes...but we still had ARMIES prior to each one. And what that meant is that we had experienced soldiers who were on hand, ready and able to train the hundreds of thousands who were drafted to fight.

Furthermore - and specifically just prior to WWII - we had a standing NAVY...and if it weren't for the aircraft carriers that we had built and and the crews we had trained in the decade prior to Pearl Harbor, we would not only have lost our battleships in that attack on Pearl, but we would not have had the wherewithal to win a little battle called 'Midway' - you may have heard of it, but judging by your own ignorance when it comes to military matters, this retired Navy man stand ready and able to educate you. Suffice it to say that if we'd not had a standing Navy at the outbreak of WWII, not only would we not have stood a chance against Japan, but we would not have been able to save Britain, nor would we have been able to give the Soviets crucial support through the Lend-Lease program.

But the fact that you seem completely ignorant of this widely held view of the founders and of their WISDOM in studying ALL gov'ts and civilizations that came before... well... I would suggest you keep reading history.

Really? "Studying all governments that came before", hm? Guy, thou hast a great deal to learn, for if you knew as much as you think you do about history, you'd know that Western Civilization owes a great deal of gratitude to a group of three hundred Spartans at a place called Thermopylae, and to the Athenian navy at an equally-important battle called Salamis. If the Spartans and Athenians had not had standing militaries at the time, would we have benefited from, say, Socrates, Plato, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Plutarch, and all the other Greeks and the Romans that followed who have all had immeasurable influence on our modern education?

THE POINT IS, standing armies are a double-edged sword. Yes, they can and often have cause great and lasting harm to their host population, and are the first tool of tyranny. BUT on the other hand, when the tyranny next door comes knocking, if you don't have a standing army, with the long years of training and experience and particularly drilling that professional militaries have had since ancient Rome B.C.E., then you've precisely zero chance to stand before that tyrant's army that wants to introduce you to what he believes is freedom and prosperity. The fact that we had a standing army and navy is why Hawaii is American today instead of Japanese, and why South Korea is free and not Japanese, and why the Philippines and Singapore and New Guinea and perhaps even China are free today instead of being under Japanese rule. The fact that the Soviets had had a standing army - even with as much as Stalin had weakened it with his purges - is more than any other the reason why Hitler lost. Even without our help, it's becoming more obvious that the Soviets were going to beat Hitler - they were just too big, and Hitler was just too stupid. BUT if we hadn't had a standing army and navy, and if we had not invaded Normandy, do you really, truly think the Soviets would have stopped in eastern Germany? No. They would have continued to the Pyrenees, and we'd most likely be looking at a completely communist Europe by now.

So be more careful next time you assume the ignorance of others just because they say something you don't like to hear.

[/QUOTE]I would rather have my gov't fear the people than the people fear their gov't.[/QUOTE]

I would rather there be no fear in either direction, but rather, understanding of the necessity of government tempered by the necessity of personal freedom. If you are a truly objective individual, you might benefit from this study which shows why conservatives concentrate so much more on what they fear, and why fear-based advertisements and politics are so much more effective among conservatives than among liberals.

Shall I deluge you with relevant quotes, or do you think you can remove your ignorance on your own?

Oooohh, scary! He's got QUOTES! Fine, go ahead. You've got quotes, and I've got education and experience, not only in the military, but in the cultures I've experienced firsthand overseas.

Again, standing armies are a two-edged sword - yes, they can cut you so badly that you'll bleed to death...but when your neighbor decides that he likes your stuff more than you do, that's your only defense.

Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

Originally Posted by tererun

really, they did not say that. Are there lots of women spiking their tampons with anthrax? It seems to me that would be an unwise and stupid way to distribute a toxin by women who might need to use the things in a sensitive area prone to access to the blood stream. but if that is a concern then the actions should have been for all objects that could have been used to harm the legislature including a gun. Your claim does not fit within the actions followed by the authorities in this case.

Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

Originally Posted by Samhain

As classy as members of the legislature grandstanding holding hangers.

I think thats actually the purpose of that tweet. The normal "the sky is falling" crap came up during this debate on this legislation as they did when other similar ones prior to their passage. The clinics remained open and abortions are still occurring as they were.

Frankly, the whole issue here is the pain aspect. The studies put the prenatal development of pain at 20-27 weeks. Shouldn't we err on the side of caution and go with the conservative side of the estimate?

I've always considered myself pro-choice with limits. I'll go Kerry and say I would never want a woman I'm with to do it and fortunately my spouse agrees. However, I prefer them done in a clinical manner in lieu of seedy hotel rooms and what not. I personally think 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are atrocious. If you can't make up your mind in 4 months, finish it out and give the kid up for adoption. I'd like to see an offer of sterilization to women who have more than several abortions.

Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

@Glen Contrarian

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. There are oh so many quotes from decades, centuries, and civilizations past that show how constant standing armies and constant war cause states to decay and eventually collapse. Even in The Art of War, Sun Tzu says "There is no instance of a nation having benefited from prolonged warfare."

21 years maybe, but your obsession with feminine issues gives the impression that your maturity level lies some where around the 12 to 13 year old range. Not too mention your political ideology, which suggest a very young and very mislead mind.